Introduction to the Altair Project Lauri N. Hansen, Project Manager April 8, 2008.
-
Upload
audra-carpenter -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
1
Transcript of Introduction to the Altair Project Lauri N. Hansen, Project Manager April 8, 2008.
2
Background
Late last year, MSFC and JSC led a study to determine the cost for a Lander Pre-Phase A/Phase A/Phase B study
Assumed an approach to project management that complied with agency standards and policies for large scale projects
Cost estimate far exceeded Program’s funding capability
Two alternatives:
Defer any significant Lander work until 2011/2012
Pursue a different approach
Program recommended alternate approach in 2/12/07 memo to HQ
Establish an in-house design team for Lunar Lander
Program also recommended establishment of a steering committee of senior advisors to help shape and guide the approach
3
Goals for in-house design team
Two main goals for in-house design team: Get smart on design and be able to produce and validate a good set
of requirements Provide integration with other projects to ensure architecture closes Increased confidence in design, cost and schedule estimates May allow us to pull long term development schedule to left
Try out a different approach for early project development that will hopefully allow a more streamlined Phase A/B
Long Term Vision: By the time we let a major Lander contract
Have a government design team that is smart enough to know what is needed
Have written excellent requirements for it Get there in as streamlined a manner as possible
4
Overview of Approach for In-house Design Team
Using a Smart Buyer approach Develop a preliminary government design
Coming out of initial design effort, have independent reviews and solicit industry input on initial design
Continue to refine design & requirements based on industry input Using knowledge gained from in-house design effort, create draft
vehicle design requirements In FY09 have a vehicle requirements review, and baseline
requirements Between 2009 – 2011, build hardware/test beds to mature
confidence in path for forward design (lower risk of unknown surprises)
Continue to mature design in-house until PDR timeframe (tentative)
5
Draft Lunar Lander Schedule PMR '07
Phase c
Phase D
= 0% Complete
Phase A/B = Lvl I Milestones
Pre-Phase A
ManifestPlanned Launches
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
2 3
PDR DCRCDR
FY06 FY07 FY08
Research &Technology SRR
Mass Sim. for Ares V-Y
Lander 1–Fully Cap. Test Unit
Lander 2-HLR
T-Now
Lander 1 4
Baseline Lander
Lander 3
Lander 4
In-House LanderIn House Design
Hardware Evaluation
Risk Reduction Prototyping
In-House Design Work
HLR
Lander 5
Lander 6
Lander 10
Lander 7
Lander 8
Lander 9
“SRR” PDR
Note 1: Assumed all Lander deliveries 6 months prior to launchNote 2: Schedule based on parametric cost estimate
AresV-Y
6
Lunar Lander Project Organization
MissionIntegration
Brad Jones, Lead
BaselineDevelopment
Lee Graham, lead(dual assignment)
RiskManagement
Julie Bassler, Lead(dual assignment)
IntegratedVehicle
PerformanceJon Lenius, Lead
SubsystemManagementWayne Lee, lead
Vehicle EngineeringJohn Connolly,
Lead
TechnologyIntegrationJulie Bassler,
Lead
• Cost Support• Procurement
PP&C
Project IntegrationLee Graham,
Lead
Lunar Lander Project OfficeLauri Hansen, Project Manager
Clinton Dorris, Deputy PM (JSC)Dan Schumacher, Deputy PM (MSFC)
SR&QARandy Rust,
Lead
Crew Representative
Joe Tanner
T&V(vacant)
• Orion• Ares
ProjectLiaisons
• EVA• LSS
Date: 11-16-07Lauri N. Hansen, Project Manager
7
Detailed Approachfor Design Team
Initial task was developing a preliminary in-house design: 6-9 mth duration Agency wide team
Expert designers from across the agency Minimalist approach – add people on a case-by-case basis, only as needed
Subsystems, not elements Approximately 20 – 25 people on the core team
Co-located initially (approx 2 months) Working from home centers following initial co-location period
Another 20-25 FTE distributed across the Agency (not co-located) Focused on Design (‘D’ in DAC)
Developed detailed Master Equipment List (over 2000 components) Developed detailed Powered Equipment List Produced sub-system schematics NASTRAN analysis using Finite Element Models Performed high-level consumables and resource utilization analysis Sub-system performance analysis by sub-system leads
Keep process overhead to the minimum required Recognizing that a small, dynamic team doesn’t need all of the process overhead that a
much larger one does But…. It still needs the basics
8
Key Tenets
1. The Lander Project is a multi-center team that must leverage the strengths from all ten NASA centers, and across multiple industries.
2. We’re trying to find new ways of doing business – if you’re not at least a little outside your comfort zone, you’re not stretching far enough.
3. Simple and elegant beats out sophisticated and complex.
4. Start with the minimum required and add as necessary. Applies to size of team, technical design, and documentation.
5. Buy down risk consciously, know how much you’re buying, and how much it costs you to do so.
9
“Minimum Functionality” Approach
“Minimum Functionality” is a design philosophy that begins with a vehicle that will perform the mission, and no more than that Does not consider contingencies Does not have added redundancy (“single string” approach)
LLPO has taken a Minimum Functionality design approach Provides early, critical insight into the overall viability of the end-to-end
architecture Provides a starting point to make informed cost/risk trades and consciously
buy down risk
A “Minimum Functionality” vehicle is NOT a design that would ever be contemplated as a “flyable” design!
The “Minimum Functional” design approach is informed by: NESC PR-06-108, “Design Development Test and Evaluation (DDT&E)
Considerations for Safe and Reliable Human Rated Spacecraft Systems CEV “Smart Buyer” lessons learned Recent CEV “Buyback” exercises
10
June 07 Dec 07 Mar 08 June 08 Sept 08 Dec 08 Mar 09Sept 07
LDAC Summary Schedule
LDAC-1: Minimum Functional Vehicle
LDAC-2: Minimum Flyable VehicleSafety / Reliability Upgrades
LDAC-3: UpgradedFlyable VehicleLOM Upgrades
LDAC-4
Contractor BAA
InterimReport
CollaborativeTechnical Exchange
FinalReport
11
Current Design Status
LDAC-1 (minimum functionality) design complete Represents a design effort that is only 6 months old, funded at a
relatively low level of effort = VERY preliminary Belief is that early coordination and cooperation between
government and industry will greatly improve the end product LDAC-1 results represent ONE design for the Lunar Lander
Does not represent final decisions on the design Specific design solution identified in as many cases as possible; should not
be interpreted to mean a final selection has been made Part of the (initial) process in driving out requirements based on a real
design process LDAC-2 is now in progress
This design cycle emphasis is improving safety & reliability Starts with the premise that adding redundancy across the board is not
necessarily the best answer. Plan is to identify the biggest risks in the design and assess optimum ways
to mitigate
12
Goals for Today
We are at a point where we think coordination with Industry is beneficial to both sides
Will be issuing a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) to seek input on the minimum functionality design and innovative ways to buy down risk while minimizing mass impacts
Will also be seeking input on effective government/industry teaming relationships